Total Articles: 13
Federal Litigation of Employment Claims - The Importance of Knowing When the Clock Begins to Run
There are a host of means by which employees can voice claims of discrimination, and employers must be prepared to respond to each method appropriately. Further, no matter how proactive an employer is in implementing new procedures and policies, how thorough its investigative process, and how responsive it is to claims, an employer may find itself named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Litigation of employment related claims presents new challenges and involves unique considerations and decisions. For instance, employers defending a lawsuit filed in state court may, under certain circumstances, remove the case to federal court. There can be various tactical reasons for doing so, including different jury pools and judges, different procedures applied to the discovery process, and even the tactic of taking a plaintiff's counsel out of his or her chosen venue (and perhaps comfort zone). However, while all federal district courts apply the same statutory removal provisions - 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 - federal courts interpret and apply these procedures differently. Thus, it is very important for employers - or at least their legal counsel - to understand these differences so as to not make a mistake and be stuck in the court you do not want to be in. A very recent federal court decision hit home this very point.
Justices Ignite "Fire" In Disparate Impact Case.
With Justice Antonin Scalia writing a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by a group of African-American firefighter applicants who alleged that the city of Chicago's applicant selection process had a disparate impact on African-Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the applicants challenged the city's decision to exclude employment applicants who did not achieve a certain score on an examination - but not the city's decision to adopt that employment practice. The Court ruled that a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice nevertheless may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer's later application of that practice so long as he or she alleges each of the elements of a disparate impact claim.
High Court Decision Addresses Disparate Impact.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held yesterday that a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a particular employment practice may nevertheless assert a disparate impact claim that challenges the employer’s subsequent application of that practice. Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974 (May 24, 2010).
Supreme Court Finds Firefighters' Disparate Impact Claims Timely.
In a unanimous decision issued May 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs complaining of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) because the charge was filed within 300 days of the employer's application of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice; the charge did not have to be filed within 300 days of the employer's adoption of the practice. See Lewis v. City of Chicago (May 24, 2010). Based on this determination, the Court held that the plaintiffs in Lewis should be permitted to proceed with their disparate impact lawsuit; however, the Court did not rule on the merits of their claims.
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Employers in Disparate Impact Cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed employees and job applicants a victory by recognizing that, in a disparate impact (i.e., unintentional discrimination) case, the Title VII statute of limitations is measured from the employer's adoption and each subsequent use of an unlawful employment practice. Each use of an unlawful employment practice – such as multiple rounds of hiring based on a written test that has a disparate impact on minority applicants – is now considered a new violation of Title VII, which will make it easier for employees to file timely claims.
Supreme Court to Determine First Title VII Statute of Limitations Case in Post-"Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" Era.
Since its passage in January 2009, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act ("the Act") has created as many questions as it has answered, including whether it applies to disparate impact cases (that is, cases involving claims that an employment practice or policy that appears neutral on its face actually affects a protected group more harshly than an unprotected group) and whether the courts will extend coverage beyond cases of pay discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that may give it the opportunity to answer these two questions.
President to Sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
President Obama is scheduled to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29, 2009. The House of Representatives approved the legislation, which had previously passed in the Senate, on January 27. The Fair Pay Act, S. 181, alters the deadline or "statute of limitations" for pay discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It also overrules the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). Congress believed the Court, in Ledbetter, unduly restricted the time period for bringing pay discrimination claims. The new law will allow employees to bring claims that would have been too stale under the Court's ruling.
Supreme Court Limits Time Period for Filing Pay Discrimination Charges (pdf).
Before bringing a discrimination lawsuit against an
employer, employees must fi le a charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
within 180 days from the date of the alleged
discrimination (300 days if the employee is fi ling
a charge for a violation of both federal and state or
local antidiscrimination laws).
Supreme Court Limits Title VII Pay Discrimination Cases (pdf).
On May 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limits the damages an employee can recover when isolated disriminatory acts from the distant past result in disparity in the employee's current level of pay.
Slender Sup. Ct. Majority Promotes Certainty In Incentive Pay Plans.
Like many employers, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. based its employees' salary at least partially on the performance reviews of supervisors and managers to whom employees report. Better performance reviews were rewarded with corresponding pay raises.
Supreme Court Requires Timely Challenge To Pay Decisions
In a sweeping decision, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, split along ideological lines, ruled today that Title VII plaintiffs must timely challenge particular pay decisions and cannot rely on the continuing violation theory to reach back to allegedly discriminatory decisions made before the charge filing period established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 05-1074, U.S. Supreme Court (May 29, 2007).
Sexual Harassment Suit Barred by Time Limitation in Job Application.
The Daimler Chrysler employment application had a statement obligating the employee to bring employment claims within six months and she did not adhere to this time limit.
A. Continuing Violation May Result Where Employer Maintains Potentially Discriminatory Policy.
Discusses California Dept. of Youth Authority, No. 99-17140 (9th Cir. November 14, 2001), in which the court reversed summary judgment in favor of the California Dept of Youth Authority in a disability discrimination/failure to hire case, in a potentially far-reaching extension of the continuing violations doctrine.
